Zimbabwe: Arms Exports

Lord Harrison: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the Government's policy on arms sales to Zimbabwe.
	 Question number missing in Hansard, possibly truncated question.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The Government's policy on export licence applications for Zimbabwe was set out in a statement made by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in another place on 3 May 2000 (Official Report, cols. 149-62).
	As my right honourable friend informed the House, the Government decided last week, in the light of the deteriorating situation in Zimbabwe, to refuse from 3 May all applications for new licences for Zimbabwe for goods and technology listed in Part III, Schedule 1, of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, as amended (commonly known as the Military List). This included all new licence applications for spare parts in connection with previous contracts. We also began a review of all extant export licences for Zimbabwe.
	In line with the statement of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister of 9 February 2000 (Official Report, cols. 184-5W) government will not grant export licences for dual-use equipment where there is a clear risk that the equipment would be used in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Other applications for standard individual export licences to export dual-use equipment to Zimbabwe will be considered on a case-by-case basis against the national criteria and those in the EU Code of Conduct.
	We have now completed the review of extant licences foreshadowed in my statement of 3 May. The Government place considerable importance on UK companies being able to honour their contractual obligations. They do not, therefore, revoke existing licences except in exceptional circumstances. Zimbabwe has now regrettably placed itself in that category. We have, therefore, decided to revoke all extant standard individual export licences for goods and technology on the Military List (with the possible exception of one extant licence for de-mining equipment already in Zimbabwe) and to remove Zimbabwe as a permitted destination from all open individual export licences for goods and technology on the Military List.
	In addition, Zimbabwe is a permitted destination on four open general export licences (OGELs) and two open general transhipment licences (OGTLs) which allow the export of goods and technology on the Military List. Zimbabwe will now be removed from the coverage of these licences. Amended copies of these licences will be placed in the Library of the House.
	We will remove Zimbabwe as a permitted destination from the coverage of extant open individual export licences for dual-use equipment. Exporters affected by this measure may, however, submit applications for standard individual export licences for this equipment. Such applications will be considered on a case-by-case basis against the criteria as described above.
	We will also be prohibiting transhipment of goods on the Military List to Zimbabwe via the United Kingdom without a licence by means of an amendment to Schedule 3 of the EG(C)O.
	The effect of this is that we now have a national arms embargo on Zimbabwe. We will be requesting the Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories to take the necessary measures to implement the same embargo.
	The Government will continue to monitor events in Zimbabwe closely.

Young People Held in Adult Prisons

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Lord Bassam of Brighton on 12 April (WA 49), what are the "particular circumstances" (other than distance from court) making it appropriate for young men to be temporarily held in adult prisons.
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Bassam of Brighton on 12 April (WA 49), how many 17 year-olds on remand share facilities with adults in prison.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Other than for reasons of distance from court, it might be appropriate temporarily to hold young men outside the under-18 estate for reasons of security or medical requirements. There might also be occasions where an establishment outside the under-18 estate could offer specialist facilities to meet an individual regime need. All such cases would be considered on an individual basis between the prison establishment and the young person's youth offending team.
	On 5 May 2000, there were 60 unsentenced young men aged 17 in prison establishments that also hold adult males and 17 unsentenced young women aged 17 in prison establishments that also hold adult females.

Young Women Serving Sentences

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Lord Bassam of Brighton of 12 April (WA 49), what is their estimate for the period of time it will take for young women aged (a) 15 to 16 and (b) 17 to be placed in non-Prison Service accommodation.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Much will depend on the demand for secure places. The Government are strengthening the community-based options available to the courts where the seriousness of the offence or the need to protect the public does not warrant the use of custody. The Youth Justice Board will place as many sentenced girls aged 15 to 17 as it can in non-Prison Service accommodation over the next year. It considers the process may take two years to complete.

Incitement to Religious Hatred

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Lord Bassam of Brighton on 12 April (WA 50), what is the justification for banning the advocacy of religious hatred in Northern Ireland but not in Great Britain.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: As I explained in my reply to Baroness Whitaker on 12 April (WA 49-50), the issues surrounding the definition of "racial hatred" and its application to particular groups are difficult and complex. But this difficulty and complexity are a reflection of the ethnic and religious diversity of Britain generally.
	It is the Government's view that the particular circumstances in Northern Ireland, with its terrible history of sectarian hostility and violence, require particular measures which it may not be suitable to apply to the United Kingdom. That is why there is legislation dealing with the issue which is specific to Northern Ireland, namely the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. Under this it is an offence to incite hatred against a group of persons defined by "religious belief".
	I should emphasise, however, that we are continuing to keep the issue of incitement to religious hatred under review.

Detention in Metropolitan Police Cells

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many persons have been detained for longer than 24 hours in police and court cells in the Metropolitan Police area in each of the last three years for which figures are available; and how many of them were Immigration Act detainees held for reasons other than early deportation.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: In response to the first part of the noble Lord's question I refer him to the written reply given by my noble friend Lord Bach on 2 May (Official Report, WA 152-53).
	Regrettably, information on the number of Immigration Act detainees detained in Metropolitan Police cells during the last three years is available only at disproportionate cost through the examination of individual case records. It would not be possible from the records that are available to identify those detainees who were held for reasons other than early deportation.

Police Recruitment: Crime Fighting Fund

Lord Peston: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they intend to accelerate police recruitment under the Crime Fighting Fund.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: On 9 February my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced in another place (House of Commons, Official Report, cols. 172-174W) that all 43 forces in England and Wales had successfully bid for a share of the Crime Fighting Fund (CFF) to recruit 5,000 police officers over and above the number they had otherwise planned to recruit over the next three years commencing April 2000. These were to be phased on the basis of 1,000 recruits this year (2000-01), 2,000 in 2001-02 and 2,000 in 2002-03. He also gave details of the number of police officers each force had been allocated.
	Since then, and as a result of the funding decisions outlined by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary was able to announce in another place (House of Commons, Official Report, cols. 1-3W) that part of the £91 million provided in the Budget for modernising the police service in England and Wales would be used to accelerate the CFF with a view to delivering the 5,000 recruits within the first two years of the scheme.
	My right honourable friend has consulted the police service and police authority representatives and he is now pleased to announce that forces will be able to recruit up to a maximum of 3,000 new recruits in year 1 of the scheme (2000-01), rather than 1,000 as announced in February, and the remaining 2,000 in year 2 (2001-02). Tripling the number which can be recruited during the current financial year will cost about £24 millon above and beyond the £35 million which has already been provided for the current allocation. Further decisions on funding for the police service for 2001-04 will be announced as part of the Spending Review 2000 in the summer.
	The table shows the revised distribution of officers allocated to each force under the accelerated scheme.
	Home Office officials have today written to each chief constable and each police authority to explain the funding arrangements under the scheme. I have placed a copy of the letter in the Library.
	The funding for each force will be determined once each force has provided a profile of their planned recruitment during the first year. This will help ensure that funding can be maintained for forces to recruit up to the maximum in year 1. Forces are also being given the opportunity, by prior agreement, to revise their CFF allocations if they are experiencing difficulty in recruitment by deferring part of their allocation to year 2 and, for those who are able to, to accelerate some of their year 2 allocation into year 1. No force will be able to exceed its overall total CFF allocation and any increase may be limited by the total CFF budget for year 1.
	
		Revised Share of 5,000 Recruits
		
			  2000-01 2001-02  
			 Forces Year 1 Year 2 Total 
			 Avon & Somerset 67 34 101 
			 Bedfordshire 28 27 55 
			 Cambridgeshire 37 5 42 
			 Cheshire 47 39 86 
			 City of London 8 0 8 
			 Cleveland 20 8 28 
			 Cumbria 25 15 40 
			 Derbyshire 49 52 101 
			 Devon & Cornwall 77 61 138 
			 Dorset 29 17 46 
			 Durham 36 15 51 
			 Dyfed-Powys 25 25 50 
			 Essex 70 33 103 
			 Gloucestershire 29 23 52 
			 Greater Manchester 186 192 378 
			 Gwent 31 12 43 
			 Hampshire 82 51 133 
			 Hertfordshire 40 5 45 
			 Humberside 47 27 74 
			 Kent 82 64 146 
			 Lancashire 75 51 126 
			 Leicestershire 46 37 83 
			 Lincolnshire 29 12 41 
			 Merseyside 105 96 201 
			 Metropolitan 663 450 1,113 
			 Norfolk 35 31 66 
			 North Wales 34 28 62 
			 North Yorkshire 20 5 25 
			 Northamptonshire 32 21 53 
			 Northumbria 85 51 136 
			 Nottinghamshire 52 35 87 
			 South Wales 59 9 68 
			 South Yorkshire 67 34 101 
			 Staffordshire 49 34 83 
			 Suffolk 31 14 45 
			 Surrey 46 32 78 
			 Sussex 69 43 112 
			 Thames Valley 111 89 200 
			 Warwickshire 21 9 30 
			 West Mercia* 50 39 89 
			 West Midlands 173 137 310 
			 West Yorkshire 107 24 131 
			 Wiltshire 26 14 40 
			  
			 TOTAL 3,000 2,000 5,000

Criminal Defence Service

Lord Haskel: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they intend to introduce the Criminal Defence Service.

Lord Irvine of Lairg: I have agreed to a request from the Legal Services Commission to postpone the introduction of the Criminal Defence Service from 2 October 2000 to 2 April 2001. This will allow additional time for preparation by the professions and for implementation of the new arrangements by criminal defence lawyers. The Legal Services Commission is notifying the professions by letter accordingly. This delay will have no substantial effects on the reform programme, including the development of the salaried defender service. Consultation papers on the establishment of the salaried defender service and on the choice of representative will be published shortly.

Falklands and Gulf Veterans: Post-traumatic Stress Disorder

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What action they are taking in relation to the compensation claims of veterans of the Falklands and Gulf conflicts who have been diagnosed as suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder; and when they expect the first of these cases to come before the courts.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Many of the claims from veterans alleged to be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder are similar and a group action was therefore set up by the Supreme Court last year. The group action consists of two groups. Group 1 is where the earliest alleged failure by the Ministry of Defence to diagnose or properly treat their condition occurred before the repeal of Section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 on 15 May 1987 which prevented service personnel from pursuing claims for compensation from the Ministry of Defence. Group 2 is where the earliest alleged failure took place after 15 May 1987, since when service personnel have had the right to make common law claims for compensation. Approximately 15 lead cases from each group, to be agreed by both sides, will shortly be selected as representative of all the cases in the group action. These lead cases will proceed to trial towards the end of 2001, when a judge will rule on the issue of liability. The ruling in each of these lead cases will be binding on similar non-lead cases. In the meantime, both sides are concentrating on obtaining evidence in preparation for the trial.

Employment Tribunals: Jurisdiction in Claims against DTI

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, given the right to an independent tribunal under Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, they share the concern expressed by the Employment Appeal Tribunal on 11 October 1999 (in Smith v. Secretary of State for Trade and Industry); as to whether employment tribunals may properly and lawfully adjudicate on claims made against the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry) and, if so, what steps they intend to take to remedy the situation.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The Government believe that employment tribunals may properly and lawfully adjudicate in such cases. Nevertheless, following the Lord Chancellor's review of the terms of service of part-time judicial office holders, we are reviewing the employment tribunal system and expect to make some changes to the terms and conditions of lay members.

Blood Donation and Variant-CJD

Lord Lucas: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the conclusions of the article The risk of blood-borne Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, Dev Biol Stand 2000; 102: 53-9, Brown P, and in particular the conclusion that "infectivity is not reduced by leukodepletion filtration", will affect policy on blood donation in the United Kingdom.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Leucodepletion was introduced, on the advice of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC), as a precautionary measure against the theoretical risk of transmitting variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) through blood transfusion. A detailed risk assessment of variant CJD infectivity in blood commissioned by the Department of Health from Det Norske Veritas (February 1999) concluded that "leucodepletion appears to have significant benefit in reducing the risk of variant CJD infection through blood transfusion". This assessment was considered and accepted by SEAC.
	We are continually reviewing the available evidence on the effectiveness of leucodepletion but, to date, there has been no new evidence to justify a change of policy. The article by Dr Paul Brown describes experimental studies with scrapie and sporadic CJD and concludes, on the basis of preliminary data, that the negligible plasma infectivity detected in experiments in mice is not significantly reduced by leucodepletion. It does not consider variant CJD, except to say that the risks of blood-borne transmission are unknown, or provide conclusive evidence on the effectiveness of leucodepletion in reducing the risk of variant CJD.

Benefit Recipients: Post Office Facilities

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What a benefit recipient will present to the Post Office for payment after the end of the present payment book system.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Starting in 2003 the normal method of paying benefit will be by automated credit transfer (ACT) into a bank account. Those who wish to do so will be able to access their cash at post offices.
	The precise means of doing so will be a matter for the Post Office and the banks. However, we expect available options to include withdrawing money through a bankcard being swiped through the new "Horizon" computer terminals currently being installed in post offices or from the cash machines that will be installed in some post offices.
	We also recognise there will be some people whom we will not be able to pay by ACT and some urgent payments that cannot be made this way. A system will be put in place to enable these people to access their cash at post offices. We are still considering the detailed arrangements.

Waste Incineration: Proposed Directive

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the answers by Lord Whitty on 19 April on the European Union waste incineration directive (H.L. Deb., cols. 700-01), whether they will give details of:
	(a) their pursuit in Brussels of an exemption for small incinerators; whether a vote has been taken on this exemption; and, if so, what was the result; and
	(b) the exemptions given to Portugal.

Lord Whitty: The Council of Ministers is currently considering the European Parliament's amendments to the waste incineration directive Common Position, including those affecting the scope, at official level. Council's rules of procedure do not allow me to comment on the detail of those discussions. No decisions have been taken by the Council in relation to the European Parliament's amendments. We will keep the House informed in the usual way.
	There are no exemptions or other provisions in the directive which relate specifically to Portugal or to any other member state. The directive would, as currently drafted, apply equally to all 15 member states. As I explained in my 19 April answer (H.L. Deb., col. 700), there are exemptions for plants treating only vegetable waste from the food processing industry and for those treating only cork waste. The Council concluded that it is appropriate to consider these wastes as biomass, and therefore to include them in the list of exclusions in order to avoid discouraging use of biomass for energy purposes.

Forest Enterprise: Quinquennial Review

Baroness Mallalieu: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What arrangements are being made for the quinquennial review of the Forest Enterprise executive agency.

Baroness Hayman: As an executive agency, Forest Enterprise is subject to review every five years--part of the process of continuous improvement of government services promised in the Modernising Government White Paper of March 1999. Forest Enterprise was established as an executive agency on 1 April 1996 and its review has now started. Stage 1 is concerned with getting the organisation right, and its conclusions will be reported to forestry Ministers in July. Stage 2, which is concerned with improving the agency's performance, will be completed in December.
	The review will include wide-ranging consultation with Forest Enterprise's customers, visitors and other interested parties, who are invited to contact the Secretary to the Forestry Commissioners at 231 Corstorphine Road, Edinburgh EH12 7AT, or to visit the Forestry Commission's website at www.forestry.gov.uk/fereview.

Seed Purity

Lord Harris of Haringey: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What action they are taking to address the issue of seed purity.

Baroness Hayman: We are taking several new steps to ensure seed purity, in addition to the current consultation on the importation and labelling of seeds. These include pressing internationally for agreed standards, testing of seed imports to the UK and working with the industry on a code of practice. The need for action in this area is highlighted by the recent information we have received from Advanta Seeds UK that some of its conventional rapeseed sold and sown in 1999 and 2000 in several EU member states, including the UK, contained about 1 per cent of genetically modified rapeseed. The genetic modification in question has already been assessed and cleared for food use and for field trials in the UK. We have consulted both ACRE (the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment) and the Food Standards Agency, who have confirmed the view that there is no risk to public health or the environment.

Interception of Communications Commissioner

Lord Gordon of Strathblane: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What arrangements have been made to appoint a commissioner under Section 8 of the Interception of Communications Act following the expiration of Lord Nolan's appointment on 10 April 2000.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: Lord Justice Swinton Thomas has accepted an appointment as the Interception of Communications Commissioner for a period of three years from 10 April 2000.
	I thank his predecessor Lord Nolan for the great contribution he made during the six years he spent as Interception of Communications Commissioner.

House of Lords Reform

The Earl of Sandwich: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, in preparation for the second stage of reform of the House of Lords, they will;
	(a) consider the extent to which the present composition of the House reflects a variety of professional experience;
	(b) compare the House of Lords with the House of Commons in this respect; and
	(c) make the results of this consideration publicly available.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: The Government believe that a widely based and representative composition has an important part in ensuring that the second Chamber has a distinctive role to play within Parliament. It is one of the reasons why we are minded to accept the approach of the Royal Commission that the second Chamber should have a majority of nominated members. I am sure these questions are some of those which the interim Appointments Commission will want to bear in mind when considering its nominations.